Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Selling False Hope: Business 'Ethics'
I recently received an email from someone trying to better herself and her family through education. She seemed to be in desperate economic straits. Working on her Associate's degree and in need of advice on how to acquire the necessary resources to do her work online, she ostensibly needed a laptop computer. In her email she mentioned that she was taking course work online from Westwood College. Curious, I Googled Westwood and immediately found extensive references to unethical practices in the Ripoff Report. See this link for specific allegations of unethical or perhaps even fraudulent practices.
It sickens me that such places exist. Graduates of Westwood can expect to be in tens of thousands of dollars of debt, and with no marketable degree. To take advantage of others' desperation and desire to better themselves is morally obscene.
It sickens me that such places exist. Graduates of Westwood can expect to be in tens of thousands of dollars of debt, and with no marketable degree. To take advantage of others' desperation and desire to better themselves is morally obscene.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Genetic Testing & Research: Some Questions for us to Think about. . . .
1. Is the manipulation and alteration of the human genome immoral? Why or why not?
2. Human embryonic stem cell research offers the promise of curing diseases such as cancer, Parkinson’s, diabetes, heart disease, and spinal cord injuries. It also has the potential to make health care more effective by personally tailoring treatment to each individual's genomic characteristics. Gene therapy research requires, however, the use and destruction of human embryos. Is this immoral? Do blastocysts or embryos have intrinsic moral worth? Or do the potential benefits of stem cell research outweigh the moral concerns about using human embryos as a means to the end of helping others?
3. To what extent is it morally justified to use someone for the benefit of another? What makes one life more valuable than another?
4. Is the cloning of humans immoral? What are the main reasons for thinking that reproductive cloning is morally right or wrong? Is there a right to a unique genetic identity?
5. As more genetic information about you is gathered, there is greater potential for abuse. You might, for example, lose your job if your employer were to find out that you have a higher than normal probability for developing a serious disease. How important is genetic privacy? How much do others have a right to know about your genetic makeup?
6. Would it be wrong to create “designer children,” either through selective breeding or by the vitro modification of genes? Why or why not?
7. If your parents paid a lot of money to a reproductive geneticist for your “designer genes,” would you have an obligation to pay them back if you don’t live up to their expectations? Could they sue the geneticist for breach of contract?
8. Would it be wrong to give birth knowingly to a baby with inherited genetic defects? If, using prenatal testing procedures like amniocentesis or ultrasound, the results show that a fetus has Down Syndrome, Tay-Sachs, or spina bifida, would it be morally wrong to continue the pregnancy? Could the parents be held liable for punitive damages in a ‘wrongful life’ or ‘wrongful birth’ lawsuit?
9. If parents decide to have a child with birth defects, can health insurers deny them coverage?
10. Should eugenics be left to the marketplace? If there is a bias, reinforced in the marketplace, that favors a genetic advantage of the wealthy over the poor, won’t this result in a Bio-Divide between the ‘Gen-Rich’ and ‘Gen-Poor’? Won’t the genetically rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, placing the latter at a competitive disadvantage? Won't genetic inequality accelerate social and economic inequality?
11. Should everyone who is born have equal access to genetic opportunity?
12. Should genes be patented? Is there a slippery slope in treating human genetic material as a commodity? Would it be wrong, e.g., to produce jewelry made out of human genetic material?
13. Are anthropocentric cultural attitudes toward human life as superior to other forms of life justified given our genetic similarities to other species? Given our common genetic 'language,' are other forms of life "essentially" different? (The human genome, e.g., only has approximately twice as many genes as a fruit fly. The mouse and roundworm have approximately the same number of genes as the human genome.)
14. The more we learn about how our genes influence our intellectual ability, metabolism, gender identity, and risk for disease, the more question there seems to be whether we really have control over who we are and what we do. Do our genes determine who we are?
15. In 1927 the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in the Virginia case of Buck vs. Bell that compulsory sterilization of the “mentally retarded and feebleminded” was legally justified because they posed a “genetic threat to society.” Given that there is historical precedent for state enforced eugenics, should we be concerned about the intervention of the government in parental decisions about reproductive choice?
16. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) was signed into law in 2008. It prohibits health insurance companies and employers from using genetic information to deny or restrict access to health care and fire or refuse to hire employees. Does this go far enough in protecting our privacy and preventing potential discrimination?
17. Forensic DNA testing has freed innocent people from jail, and even death row. It has also assisted law enforcement in matching criminals to their crimes. Should individuals be required to submit DNA samples to a national DNA database for the purpose of assisting criminal investigations?
18. In criminal investigations, individuals may be asked by law enforcement to submit "rule-out" samples of their DNA to assist with the investigation. If asked by the police, should you voluntarily submit your DNA? Is it ethical to pressure people to cooperate with criminal investigations by submitting samples of their DNA? (Christa Worthington case)
19. Genetic testing can identify the gene for Huntington’s Disease, a progressive, fatal neurological disease that typically afflicts people in mid-life. What would you advise in the following case? Jessica’s maternal grandfather died of Huntington’s Disease (and her father does not carry the HD gene). Her mother, now in her mid-40s, seems asymptomatic but has been a bit forgetful and has been acting somewhat clumsily lately. Jessica would like to get tested for HD before she decides to marry and have a family. If her test results come back positive for HD, should she tell her mother? Should she tell her other siblings?
2. Human embryonic stem cell research offers the promise of curing diseases such as cancer, Parkinson’s, diabetes, heart disease, and spinal cord injuries. It also has the potential to make health care more effective by personally tailoring treatment to each individual's genomic characteristics. Gene therapy research requires, however, the use and destruction of human embryos. Is this immoral? Do blastocysts or embryos have intrinsic moral worth? Or do the potential benefits of stem cell research outweigh the moral concerns about using human embryos as a means to the end of helping others?
3. To what extent is it morally justified to use someone for the benefit of another? What makes one life more valuable than another?
4. Is the cloning of humans immoral? What are the main reasons for thinking that reproductive cloning is morally right or wrong? Is there a right to a unique genetic identity?
5. As more genetic information about you is gathered, there is greater potential for abuse. You might, for example, lose your job if your employer were to find out that you have a higher than normal probability for developing a serious disease. How important is genetic privacy? How much do others have a right to know about your genetic makeup?
6. Would it be wrong to create “designer children,” either through selective breeding or by the vitro modification of genes? Why or why not?
7. If your parents paid a lot of money to a reproductive geneticist for your “designer genes,” would you have an obligation to pay them back if you don’t live up to their expectations? Could they sue the geneticist for breach of contract?
8. Would it be wrong to give birth knowingly to a baby with inherited genetic defects? If, using prenatal testing procedures like amniocentesis or ultrasound, the results show that a fetus has Down Syndrome, Tay-Sachs, or spina bifida, would it be morally wrong to continue the pregnancy? Could the parents be held liable for punitive damages in a ‘wrongful life’ or ‘wrongful birth’ lawsuit?
9. If parents decide to have a child with birth defects, can health insurers deny them coverage?
10. Should eugenics be left to the marketplace? If there is a bias, reinforced in the marketplace, that favors a genetic advantage of the wealthy over the poor, won’t this result in a Bio-Divide between the ‘Gen-Rich’ and ‘Gen-Poor’? Won’t the genetically rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, placing the latter at a competitive disadvantage? Won't genetic inequality accelerate social and economic inequality?
11. Should everyone who is born have equal access to genetic opportunity?
12. Should genes be patented? Is there a slippery slope in treating human genetic material as a commodity? Would it be wrong, e.g., to produce jewelry made out of human genetic material?
13. Are anthropocentric cultural attitudes toward human life as superior to other forms of life justified given our genetic similarities to other species? Given our common genetic 'language,' are other forms of life "essentially" different? (The human genome, e.g., only has approximately twice as many genes as a fruit fly. The mouse and roundworm have approximately the same number of genes as the human genome.)
14. The more we learn about how our genes influence our intellectual ability, metabolism, gender identity, and risk for disease, the more question there seems to be whether we really have control over who we are and what we do. Do our genes determine who we are?
15. In 1927 the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in the Virginia case of Buck vs. Bell that compulsory sterilization of the “mentally retarded and feebleminded” was legally justified because they posed a “genetic threat to society.” Given that there is historical precedent for state enforced eugenics, should we be concerned about the intervention of the government in parental decisions about reproductive choice?
16. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) was signed into law in 2008. It prohibits health insurance companies and employers from using genetic information to deny or restrict access to health care and fire or refuse to hire employees. Does this go far enough in protecting our privacy and preventing potential discrimination?
17. Forensic DNA testing has freed innocent people from jail, and even death row. It has also assisted law enforcement in matching criminals to their crimes. Should individuals be required to submit DNA samples to a national DNA database for the purpose of assisting criminal investigations?
18. In criminal investigations, individuals may be asked by law enforcement to submit "rule-out" samples of their DNA to assist with the investigation. If asked by the police, should you voluntarily submit your DNA? Is it ethical to pressure people to cooperate with criminal investigations by submitting samples of their DNA? (Christa Worthington case)
19. Genetic testing can identify the gene for Huntington’s Disease, a progressive, fatal neurological disease that typically afflicts people in mid-life. What would you advise in the following case? Jessica’s maternal grandfather died of Huntington’s Disease (and her father does not carry the HD gene). Her mother, now in her mid-40s, seems asymptomatic but has been a bit forgetful and has been acting somewhat clumsily lately. Jessica would like to get tested for HD before she decides to marry and have a family. If her test results come back positive for HD, should she tell her mother? Should she tell her other siblings?
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The Abortion Issue
In our Readings on Abortion in the course site, if you haven't already done so, take a look at the three main items: the papers by Thomson and Marquis, and the recorded streaming video of the Princeton colloquium with Peter Singer and Don Marquis.
Marquis argues that the reason why it is prima facie wrong to kill human embryos, fetuses, indeed a single-cell conceptus, is the same as the reason why it is wrong to kill an adult human, a person like you or me; namely, killing would deprive the individual of a future of value. Having a valuable future is a property that fetuses, etc. have that makes killing them no less wrong (perhaps in some sense even more so in virtue of their greater potentiality) than depriving us of our future.
Singer comes back with an interesting counter-argument that he presents as a reductio ad absurdum. Basically, he points out that Marquis' morally relevant property is not mental or social but biological: being an identifiable human individual (gametes are not, hence they are excluded from moral consideration). So, being an identifiable individual having a valuable 'future-like-ours' is the basis of our moral status. Now, Singer points out that blastocysts of 2, 4, 8, 16 . . . cells are not necessarily individuals -- but clusters of individual cells, each of which could develop into a separate human being. So, we can't really say, as Marquis wants to, that, at conception, there is an identifiable individual with moral standing. It is even worse, however, because if you grant the possibility of cloning -- and given the fact that mammals have already been cloned, and accordingly there is nothing in principle preventing human cloning -- then each of us consists of trillions of cells, each of which could be cloned into a separate individual . . . with a future of value. Unlike ordinary gestation, however, their potential is not temporally actuated but rather is in a state of 'arrested development.' They still *could* have a valuable future, however, if they were successfully cloned.
Thomson's argument takes a different tack. She assumes for the sake of argument that fetuses are *persons* but then argues that someone's being a person does not entail that that person has a right to life - or rather, a claim against you or me that we do whatever is necessary to prevent the death of that person, especially if doing so imposes sacrifices that have a significant impact on our life prospects. Take for example, my "Salman Rushdie" example in the Abortion Argument Database in the course site. The basic point is this: is there a slam dunk argument that proves that everyone has a moral obligation to make significant personal sacrifices to prevent the death of another person? If the only thing that would save Rush Limbaugh's life (Rush is in a cave in Tibet) is your cool hand on his fevered brow -- do you have a moral obligation to leave family and job and fly at your own expense to Tibet to save Rush? If you don't and he dies, are you morally responsible for his death?
Some of you would perhaps sacrifice almost everything to save the life of another person. Others would not. Moral intuitions differ. Absent a slam dunk argument supporting one moral intuition or the other . . . what should our stance be? Tolerance or intolerance?
Marquis argues that the reason why it is prima facie wrong to kill human embryos, fetuses, indeed a single-cell conceptus, is the same as the reason why it is wrong to kill an adult human, a person like you or me; namely, killing would deprive the individual of a future of value. Having a valuable future is a property that fetuses, etc. have that makes killing them no less wrong (perhaps in some sense even more so in virtue of their greater potentiality) than depriving us of our future.
Singer comes back with an interesting counter-argument that he presents as a reductio ad absurdum. Basically, he points out that Marquis' morally relevant property is not mental or social but biological: being an identifiable human individual (gametes are not, hence they are excluded from moral consideration). So, being an identifiable individual having a valuable 'future-like-ours' is the basis of our moral status. Now, Singer points out that blastocysts of 2, 4, 8, 16 . . . cells are not necessarily individuals -- but clusters of individual cells, each of which could develop into a separate human being. So, we can't really say, as Marquis wants to, that, at conception, there is an identifiable individual with moral standing. It is even worse, however, because if you grant the possibility of cloning -- and given the fact that mammals have already been cloned, and accordingly there is nothing in principle preventing human cloning -- then each of us consists of trillions of cells, each of which could be cloned into a separate individual . . . with a future of value. Unlike ordinary gestation, however, their potential is not temporally actuated but rather is in a state of 'arrested development.' They still *could* have a valuable future, however, if they were successfully cloned.
Thomson's argument takes a different tack. She assumes for the sake of argument that fetuses are *persons* but then argues that someone's being a person does not entail that that person has a right to life - or rather, a claim against you or me that we do whatever is necessary to prevent the death of that person, especially if doing so imposes sacrifices that have a significant impact on our life prospects. Take for example, my "Salman Rushdie" example in the Abortion Argument Database in the course site. The basic point is this: is there a slam dunk argument that proves that everyone has a moral obligation to make significant personal sacrifices to prevent the death of another person? If the only thing that would save Rush Limbaugh's life (Rush is in a cave in Tibet) is your cool hand on his fevered brow -- do you have a moral obligation to leave family and job and fly at your own expense to Tibet to save Rush? If you don't and he dies, are you morally responsible for his death?
Some of you would perhaps sacrifice almost everything to save the life of another person. Others would not. Moral intuitions differ. Absent a slam dunk argument supporting one moral intuition or the other . . . what should our stance be? Tolerance or intolerance?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
